[cxx-abi-dev] Proposal: missing mangling of elaborated type specifiers

[John McCall]

On Mar 26, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Richard Smith <richardsmith at google.com> wrote:
> On 26 March 2014 13:59, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2014, at 1:46 PM, Hubert Tong <hstong at ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> > John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote on 26-03-2014 03:54:40 PM:
> > > From: John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com>
> > > To: Richard Smith <richardsmith at google.com>,
> > > Cc: Hubert Tong/Toronto/IBM at IBMCA, "cxx-abi-dev at codesourcery.com"
> > > <cxx-abi-dev at codesourcery.com>
> > > Date: 26-03-2014 03:54 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [cxx-abi-dev] Missing mangling of elaborated type specifiers
> > >
> > > On Mar 26, 2014, at 12:23 PM, Richard Smith <richardsmith at google.com> wrote:
> > > On 26 March 2014 11:59, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
> > > I agree that the benefit of a demangler being able to say whether
> > > it's got a class or struct is marginal. Maybe drop the 'TC' mangling
> > > and keep the other three?
> > >
> > > Sounds good to me.
> > Agreed. The proposal I had in the works was substantially similar (option 2 with no class/struct distinction).
> > I think we can move forward with the proposal presented by Richard.
> 
> Okay, so this is the proposal under review:
> 
> <class-enum-type> ::= <name>    # non-dependent or dependent type name or dependent elaborated type specifier using ‘typename'
> 
> Nit: This last case is a typename-specifier, not an elaborated-type-specifier.

I will make that change.

> Do we need to clarify that we mean 'instantiation-dependent' by 'dependent' here?

No, I think that’s the standard rule for dependence in the mangling section.

John.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sourcerytools.com/pipermail/cxx-abi-dev/attachments/20140326/6d3915d6/attachment.html>